betsy Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tightened+muzzle+scientists+Orwellian/3515345/story.html Scientists have become so outspoken these days. What used to be researches and experiments done in cloak of secrecy (especially those highly sensitive)....are now handled like tabloid news! On one hand it is nice to know what is being researched/analyzed/experimented on..... but I can very well understand the position of the government as well. Science is being manipulated and used for politics. Some scientists, just like some media, have cooperated and thrown away principles and actively joined partisan politicking. Anyway, these are federal employees! Robson asked Dallimore to provide the reporter's questions and "the proposed responses," saying: "We will send it up to MO (minister's office) for approval." Robson said interviews about the flood study needed ministerial approval for two reasons: the inquiring reporter represented a "national news outlet" and the "subject has wide-ranging implications." The documents show several communications managers, policy advisers, political staff and senior officials were involved drafting and vetting "media lines" on the ancient flood study. Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tightened+muzzle+scientists+Orwellian/3515345/story.html#ixzz11O4P6gIK The article stated that they needed PRE-APPROVAL before disclosing any information. That doesn't translate to "zipping." Since it's my dollar that's funding these experiments, I'd like a tight control on loose lips thank you..... Edited October 4, 2010 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) deleted. double posting. Edited October 4, 2010 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 Breaking news, the government's salaries are paid for by you and me. So that means we call the shot then? The government, being paid by you and me, must not make his decisions without consulting us? All decisions should be decided by polls? We just have a puppet government? Explain please. Quote
betsy Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 Then you don't get funding. Then get funding from somewhere else. Others do. Quote
betsy Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) Gosh! Maybe reporters and journalists are too stupid to be able to understand the science, wyly? They could give a distorted view of the particular science they are reporting on if they aren't sciencetits themselves. Some do give inaccurate report - as in the recent case of CTV Tom Clark (a veteran at that) who accused the Conservatives of reporting to the RCMP that investment scandal that broke out during the election campaign 4 years ago (it was the NDP MP Wasylysalys who reported it to the RCMP), and when Clark was corrected by the Conservative MP about that inaccuracy, Clark didn't even bother to acknowledge his mistake and let it slide! That is either irresponsible....or dishonest...or both! Some reporters and journalists have thrown away their principles and become too slanted and partisan - to the point of manipulating and moulding information that suit their agendas! Sadly they've compromised their credibility. Of course those who don't follow the political scene will not realize the untruth and the slant. Heck, some of them will not think twice about spilling strategic info in the Afghan war if and when they can! With total disregard for the consequences that's not to our best interest! Scientific research, as in all areas that are deemed sensitive, there is a time to divulge indepth info to the media! This "Public's got a right to know..." is being used, and MIS-USED! Edited October 4, 2010 by betsy Quote
Pliny Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 Oh my - just how will Harper Conservatives spin the 6% unreported violent crime and 93% personal safety satisfaction figures... spin, in order to substantiate the $9 Billion new prison costs? It's all pretty much just spin, isn't it, Waldo? From your article: The measures include spending an estimated $2 billion on new prisons, which has drawn the ire of opposition members who have said such an undertaking could cost as much as $9 billion I thought you would be more scientific and less political but you are more political than scientific. Quoting the $9B figure spins it like any other politician. You see how easy it is to become political and override your sense of integrity by just parroting back what you read, Waldo? Because the Liberals can't do estimates, proven by the $28m gun registry that wound up costing a billion dollars, doesn't mean everyone else can't do correct estimates. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
waldo Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 Oh my - just how will Harper Conservatives spin the 6% unreported violent crime and 93% personal safety satisfaction figures... spin, in order to substantiate the $9 Billion new prison costs?It's all pretty much just spin, isn't it, Waldo?From your article: The measures include spending an estimated $2 billion on new prisons, which has drawn the ire of opposition members who have said such an undertaking could cost as much as $9 billion I thought you would be more scientific and less political but you are more political than scientific. Quoting the $9B figure spins it like any other politician. You see how easy it is to become political and override your sense of integrity by just parroting back what you read, Waldo? Because the Liberals can't do estimates, proven by the $28m gun registry that wound up costing a billion dollars, doesn't mean everyone else can't do correct estimates. Pliny... trust the google... save yourself additional embarrassment next time. Of course, that $9B figure originates from a Parliamentary Budget Office report that intended to quantify the implications of Bill C-25, the Conservatives "Truth in Sentencing Act". Of course, the PBO (Kevin Page) became involved as the Harper Conservatives have steadfastly refused to provide projected costs... Pliny... if you don't like the $9 Billion figure being bandied about by the media/Opposition, please, please... lobby your favoured Harper Conservatives to release projected costs - hey? Quote
Saipan Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) Actually Alan Rock claimed $2 million for long gun registration just to ram it through the Parliament fast. Later he said it'll be scrapped if it reaches $120 million. Most recent figure by Auditor General is closer to $2 Billion. And few long firearms were registered so far. By people who don't know of amnesty. Edited October 4, 2010 by Saipan Quote
waldo Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 Scientific research, as in all areas that are deemed sensitive, there is a time to divulge indepth info to the media! This "Public's got a right to know..." is being used, and MIS-USED! ... and when your described "Public's got a right know" (media openness/free access), becomes the butt of a Harper Conservative policy directive that presumes on favouring controlling the message to serve the Harper Conservative political agenda? Harper Conservative government accused of manipulating science newsThe federal government engages in "unacceptable political interference" in the communication of government science, says the head of a group that represents both government press officers and science journalists."Openness is being held ransom to media messages that serve the government's political agenda," wrote Kathryn O'Hara, president of the Canadian Science Writers' Association, in an opinion published online Wednesday in the international scientific journal Nature. The article comes during Right to Know Week in Canada, a celebration of open information that "ironically … comes on the back of new evidence of unacceptable political interference in the public statements of federal government researchers," said O'Hara, who is also the CTV chair in science broadcast journalism at Carleton University. Public loss Scientists say it is the public that may lose out when government science news isn't communicated properly. Prof. Normand Mousseau, a physics professor at the University of Montreal, said communication is a key part of science. "If I make the science, I put it in a book and bury it, it's useless." With government science, communication with the public is particularly important because it's usually more relevant than university research to people's everyday lives and concerns, and may drive policies that affect their lives directly, said Mousseau, former communications director for the Canadian Association of Physicists. It's also publicly funded, said Paul Dufour, who has spent the past 30 years working in the field of science policy for both government and science agencies, including the now defunct Office of the National Science Adviser. "Taxypayers are wanting to know what happens to their money that's going to all these agencies and departments that perform research, regulation, health, safety, defence, etc.," he said. He added that it is natural for all governments to want to manage and control outgoing communications, but the extent varies from government to government. However, he said the Harper government has been interested in management and control of information from Day 1. "So one should not be surprised that that holds true for information related to science like any other issue." "This message manipulation shows a disregard for both the values and virtues of journalism and science," she said. Quote
Saipan Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 ... and when your described "Public's got a right know" (media openness/free access), becomes the butt of a Harper Conservative policy directive that presumes on favouring controlling the message to serve the Harper Conservative political agenda? CBC always controls message to serve liberal agenda. And we all pay for it. Quote
waldo Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 ... and when your described "Public's got a right know" (media openness/free access), becomes the butt of a Harper Conservative policy directive that presumes on favouring controlling the message to serve the Harper Conservative political agenda?CBC always controls message to serve liberal agenda. And we all pay for it. given your most visibly moronic posting history, I would typically be predisposed to throwing the ignore switch on you... however, given you've received the "jbg seal of approval", I will take some special interest in you... up to a point - even I have standards! the above post that you responded to contains no direct reference to the presumed partisan attachments certain media outlets are tagged with... it was a generic reference to "media". You have chosen to narrow that generic media reference to a specific member grouping, while also attaching your perceived partisan labeling. Why did you do that? Quote
betsy Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) ... and when your described "Public's got a right know" (media openness/free access), becomes the butt of a Harper Conservative policy directive that presumes on favouring controlling the message to serve the Harper Conservative political agenda? And what agenda is that? The article comes during Right to Know Week in Canada, a celebration of open information that "ironically … comes on the back of new evidence of unacceptable political interference in the public statements of federal government researchers," said O'Hara, who is also the CTV chair in science broadcast journalism at Carleton University. Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/09/29/federal-scientists-media-government.html#ixzz11PXc4XC9 Why is that statement not so surprising seeing where it's coming from? Quite self-serving....sounds like the usual whines from the Opposition! Edited October 4, 2010 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) CBC always controls message to serve liberal agenda. And we all pay for it. You bet. And you see the true colors really come out every time there's a threat of an election....CBC (even Evan Solomon) bends over every which way to switch the channel off any Liberal criticisms (especially on Ignatieff) and keeps re-heating and re-heating old news criticisms of the Conservatives (especially Harper). When a Conservative MP brought out the negative statements of Ignatieff regarding Canada not deserving any seat in the Security Council....Evan Solomon was quick to butt in and point out, "Liberal MP Martha Hall Findley already addressed that by saying they support Canada...," and took that issue off the table! Imagine that! It's Ignatieff who made that statement, not Martha Hall Findley! BTW, did these networks like CBC, CTV etc.., made such a big deal when the controversial AL JAZEERA was coming to Canada? The networks we have are mostly left-leaning and they want to keep it that way! Edited October 4, 2010 by betsy Quote
waldo Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 BTW, did these networks like CBC, CTV etc.., made such a big deal when the controversial AL JAZEERA was coming to Canada? The networks we have are mostly left-leaning and they want to keep it that way! is CTV Newsworld left-leaning? Who knew? As compared to the attempts to position FoxNewsNorth with preferential carriage treatment, were there similar efforts behind the availability and broadcasting of Al Jazeera? Did Steven Harper fly to Qatar to meet with Al Jazeera's chairman, Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer al-Thani... you know... like he did when he met with Fox News heads, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes in New York? Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 4, 2010 Author Report Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) is CTV Newsworld left-leaning? Who knew? As compared to the attempts to position FoxNewsNorth with preferential carriage treatment, were there similar efforts behind the availability and broadcasting of Al Jazeera? Did Steven Harper fly to Qatar to meet with Al Jazeera's chairman, Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer al-Thani... you know... like he did when he met with Fox News heads, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes in New York? The accusations of the press being right wing or left wing go back pretty much to the invention of the press. It's a tiresome accusation, brought out by any government that doesn't get a free ride. I remember Liberals during the height of the HRDC and Sponsorship Scandals accusing the media of right wing bias. The press, in general, needs to sell newspapers, advertising time or whatever. To do that they need hot potatoes. I guess that can cause exaggeration, but it's hardly a left vs. right (or visa versa), it's more generally blowing things out of proportion. I can think of no more stark an example than in my home province of BC. During the late 1990s as the NDP government went into meltdown, the accusations from NDP supporters (including my mother-in-law who lectured me at length) tended towards a right-wing media conspiracy to destroy the NDP government. Why weren't the BC Liberals in the hot seat, blah blah blah? Well, my answer was simple. The BC Liberals are the Opposition, and thus are, inherently, much less interesting. It's hard to sell papers on what some shadow cabinet member says, unless it's really outrageous. On the other hand, a member of the actual Cabinet, that's a real target for a headline. Of course, the BC NDP were toasted, nearly wiped out. There wasn't even much of an opposition left in Victoria after that, so the media naturally had to turn all its attention to the BC Liberals, and you guessed it, soon enough as the gaffes and unpopular policies began to roll out, BC Liberal supporters started bemoaning the left-wing media out to make them and their policies look bad. Either I'm to believe that the press changes political allegiance to the opposite of whoever is in power, or more rationally, that governments should have no expectation of free rides. The lesson for me is that political parties, particularly governing ones, will lash out at the most convenient target, which is almost inevitably the press. As Enoch Powell famously said; "For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship's captain complaining about the sea." Edited October 4, 2010 by ToadBrother Quote
betsy Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 is CTV Newsworld left-leaning? Who knew? As compared to the attempts to position FoxNewsNorth with preferential carriage treatment, were there similar efforts behind the availability and broadcasting of Al Jazeera? Did Steven Harper fly to Qatar to meet with Al Jazeera's chairman, Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer al-Thani... you know... like he did when he met with Fox News heads, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes in New York? Qatar isn't exactly nextdoor, isn't it? If a newspaper such as Al Jazeera is welcomed with open arms....then there shouldn't be any questions raised at all about Fox! At all! Anyway, I'd like the right-wing to have a voice! Let those who don't like it switch to other channels. There are a lot of other choices. After all this is a democratic country....! Quote
waldo Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 Qatar isn't exactly nextdoor, isn't it? If a newspaper such as Al Jazeera is welcomed with open arms....then there shouldn't be any questions raised at all about Fox! At all!Anyway, I'd like the right-wing to have a voice! Let those who don't like it switch to other channels. There are a lot of other choices. After all this is a democratic country....! open arms? In what context did the CRTC welcome Al Jazeera with, as you say, "open arms"? I'm not sure why you choose to perpetuate the false "denying free speech" angle... do you equate a reluctance to being forced to pay for FoxNewsNorth as an affront to democracy? Does Quebecor lack sufficiently deep enough pockets to launch FoxNewsNorth without garnering the influence of Harper Conservatives and/or the general public's cable charges? I heard Quebecor plans to buy a hockey team for Quebec City... if they're lacking the start-up capital for FoxNewsNorth, perhaps they should re-prioritize - hey? Quote
nicky10013 Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 Qatar isn't exactly nextdoor, isn't it? If a newspaper such as Al Jazeera is welcomed with open arms....then there shouldn't be any questions raised at all about Fox! At all! Anyway, I'd like the right-wing to have a voice! Let those who don't like it switch to other channels. There are a lot of other choices. After all this is a democratic country....! This is assuming Al Jazeera is some kind of terrorist front. It's actually a very reputable news organization that focuses coverage on Africa and the Middle East. As for having a right wing voice, to me that's fine, but at least come out and blatantly say this is right wing opinion based programming. The problem is the bias extends well into the news, or at least from the model we've seen from down south. All reporters are going to have some kind of bias from the left or the right which may temper their views a little bit, but in the end the result is the same because they're looking for the story. The Star for example lead the charge against the Liberal Party during sponsorship. My problem is this is the exact opposite of the stated goal of journalism. Fox News has repeatedly been caught downright lying during their news programmes to suit their political bias. My opinion is that news channels should be news channels and hard questions need to be asked to everyone, which I think stations like CNN and yes, even the CBC does. It's also my opinion that there's a victim mentality in the right wing camp. Everything is some kind of liberal conspiracy despite the fact that Conservatives own and operate most media both in the US and Canada and treat Conservatives fairly well. It seems to me that if anyone anywhere questions Conservatism in the slightest, well, they're a liberal and are biased. It's funny reading the National Post "full comment" section. 99% of the time it's a Conservative cheerleading squad but the greatest articles are the ones that question Harper's motives on certain issues that he's handled poorly. Despite them (Don Martin, John Ibbitson, Kelly McParland) being very pro-conservative, the comments on the articles which criticise Harper are without exception are along the lines of: "This paper is so Liberal, all these writers are Liberal shills" etc. etc. etc. etc. It's the type of behaviour where children stick their fingers in their ears and scream LALALALALAL I AM NOT LISTENING when god forbid they hear soemthing that goes against their base ideology. Why people can't just take a step back, look at all the variables and say, jee, maybe this course of action is best rather than grrrrrrr government bad or grrrrrrrrrrr corporations bad. It doesn't make sense to me. Quote
DrGreenthumb Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 Most recent figure by Auditor General is closer to $2 Billion. And how much did Harper spend on one weekend for the G20 again? Quote
waldo Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 ... from the journal Nature, no less! Save the census - The Canadian government should rethink its decision to change the way census data are collected. Critics have accused Canada's ruling conservative party of being anti-science — and, worse, anti-information. To gut one of the world's most respected statistical organizations, they argue, will prevent future policy decisions on everything from health care to public transport from being based on either data or logic.The incident comes amid a growing sense of unease about the right-leaning Canadian federal government's apparent disregard for science-based policy. The country continues to support the mining of asbestos and its export to the developing world, despite repeated calls to ban the toxic substance and cries of protest from the medical community. Canada has been one of the most obstructive countries at climate-change talks, and continues to be protective of its development of the tar sands — one of the world's dirtiest sources of oil. The federal government has fought against maintaining the supervised injection facility for drug addicts in Vancouver, despite staunch protest from the medical community and studies showing that such programmes are helpful. Now the government is threatening to undermine the system that collects the data needed for a multitude of other evidence-based decisions. Every five years for almost four decades, the Canadian census has involved both a head count and a longer questionnaire asking about details such as ethnicity, education and housing. The long form was sent to 20% of the population, and replying was compulsory by law. At the end of June, citing concerns about privacy, industry minister Tony Clement announced that the long form would be made voluntary; an additional Can$30 million (US$29 million) a year will be spent to send the form to 30% of the population, in an attempt to make up the numbers. This, as any statistician can testify, is not the same thing. Inevitably, vulnerable populations of the poor and downtrodden will be less likely to reply, skewing the resulting data. Although statisticians are adept at correcting for such factors in surveys, they can do so only if they have a gold-standard set of data to refer to — namely, the census data. Even if the voluntary data are sufficiently robust to allow for good public policy-making, it will still cause a problem for researchers looking for long-term trends, because comparing the compulsory data with the subsequent voluntary set will be nearly impossible. In a country defined by a mosaic of immigrant groups and indigenous populations, precision data on their lives are crucial to good public policy. Statistics Canada has been widely regarded as a world leader in handling everything from the intricacies of question wording to protecting individual privacy. Although the government claims that it is responding to public concerns about privacy and 'big brother' government, this, ironically, does not seem to be based on evidence — the privacy commissioner's office has received only three complaints about the intrusiveness of the census long form over the past decade. The United States investigated the option of switching to a voluntary long form in 2003, but concluded that it would be too expensive to bring the data up to par. Instead, this year it replaced its long form with a mandatory ongoing survey — a change that required nearly a decade of research to confirm that it would maintain the quality of the data. Academics, economists and public policy-makers find themselves open-jawed at Canada's snap decision — made without consulting the data's users — which will effectively allow the government to do less while spending more money. Letters of protest and editorials have been penned by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, and many others. Quote
Saipan Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 ... from the journal Nature, no less! Save the census - The Canadian government should rethink its decision to change the way census data are collected. WHY? It's no one's business what I buy, eat or do. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) WHY? It's no one's business what I buy, eat or do. What if you buy, eat and "do" live babies ? EDIT: I'm NOT saying you do this, btw... Edited October 4, 2010 by Michael Hardner Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
nicky10013 Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 WHY? It's no one's business what I buy, eat or do. Ahahahahaahaha. Palm meet face. Quote
Saipan Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 What if you buy, eat and "do" live babies ? EDIT: I'm NOT saying you do this, btw... How many live baby eaters were discovered by census? About as useful as long gun registration or tits on a bull. Quote
wyly Posted October 4, 2010 Report Posted October 4, 2010 How many live baby eaters were discovered by census? About as useful as long gun registration or tits on a bull. ...you are entertaining in a strange kind of way... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.